Build systems, preprocessors, and C code are made by intelligent designers with precise designs. They are observed in reality, both forming and being iterated on, with results that work when others replicate them. They prove software requires intelligent designers. Further research on that showed highly-complex software that worked with 100% reliability required the much more intelligence to produce. There's debate in scientific communities, esp in fault-tolerance and formal verification, if our designs could ever achieve the longevity and reliability seen in the mechanics of our universe.

(Now, back to scientists seeing evolution which has none of these attributes of observation-driven science. An overloaded term meaning both adaptation and large-scale changes of which I'll focus on the unproven part.)

We'll start with the scientific method since it's usually absent in some way in these claims. We work from real-world observations to a hypothesis to testing that. There's usually predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. We must be willing to modify it or let it go entirely if we're scientists. There's also peer review by skeptical parties willing to consider alternatives. They're to be weighed on the bases of evidence, not feelings or politics. Dissent is always allowed regardless of credentials or numbers behind mainstream theories.

With this process, you'd have to look at the testable predictions of macro-evolution, observe them happening, observe no contradictions, and review by people who didn't have die-hard faith in evolution. Unfortunately, the theory fails in all of those areas.

First, we never see it happening in reality despite billions of observations over thousands of years. Second, life just appears out of nowhere fully formed in the fossil record, like the Cambrian explosion. Third, the man-made creatures don't change much or live long even under ideal, lab conditions but somehow random events worked better millions of times. Fourth, complexity science along with studies of life and the universe proved both are vastly more complex than initially assumed. We can't create them, esp self-sustaining. Yet, mainstream science keeps believing evolution just happened in a way that kept happening, doesn't now the same way, and just take their word for it. No dissent is allowed either with or without observations or experiments.

Eventually, there's going to be some actual science done. That requires evolution being marked as refuted by observed evidence. (Minor adaptation is proven, though.) They need to ask where we came from with a clean slate. They must factor in complexity theory, evidence of design, what optimization theory taught us about success rate of random vs intelligently-parameterized changes, and observations in programming like design and maintenance requirements. Whatever is predicted must match real-world observations. That will be science.

Christian scientists already do that. Our current theory is that the universe and humans must have been designed by a being whose power exceeds all human knowledge and technology. The purpose isn't scientifically discoverable. The Bible, separately proven, explains it's to know and glorify God (Jesus Christ) and reflect His character as we live together and love each other. The awe of the purpose, beauty, and brilliance of God's overall creation motivates us to dig deeper into it to understand it. That God requires truth to come first is why we can't allow popular, unproven lies about either science (macro-evolution) or theology (false religion).